5 ms·

This is easy to observe in judicial elections where said judges get tough prior to elections. But there's more to it than that. The US system doesn't rehabilit

This is easy to observe in judicial elections where said judges get tough prior to elections. But there's more to it than that. The US system doesn't rehabilitate prisoners well, so letting a person who was committing armed robbery (this isn't a small offense, it's terrorizing innocent people) at 17 out at 22 isn't much better than letting them out at 27. The chance of recidivism is high, and so letting them out early is likely to backfire. You'll recall that Bush did successfully use recidivism against Dukakis in 88. He abused that to win politically, but the system failed somewhere.

extralego 8y ago
I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a crime. The lack of social mobility means that regardless of what programs or mindsets one experiences in prison, they are all but forced right back into the same environment that put them there in the first place.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  What you're saying is if there's a chance that someone is reformed, they should be given that chance. But the other possibility is that they aren't. If you're wrong on the first and keep them in longer than they need to be, that wastes their time and potential. If you're wrong on the second and they aren't changed you're putting someone else at risk (someone who is innocent). The probabilities aren't a coin flip. Someone committing armed robbery at 17 had issues. If you know your prison system not only doesn't solve those issues but probably exacerbates them, the odds are you put that person out at 22 (or however early) and not only will they not be changed, but they'll have met real criminals and have few options. That's reckless and people who didn't rob someone at gunpoint shouldn't have to deal with the risk. That's why if we aren't actually rehabilitating, you're basically playing with a loaded gun, which is why risk averse politicians and judges aren't going anywhere near that and by odds the "correct" choice. Rehabilitation isn't a distraction. You have an actual problem that you can solve by: locking them away (we do this), helping them to become productive (rehabilitation), or hoping they've changed. The last isn't a solution, it's trusting in human nature, which in this situation has already shown to be faulty.
martinald 8y ago
I think the real problem in the US is the legal discrimination that goes on to people with criminal records. Records don't automatically get 'spent' like most other countries after a period of time so always need to be declared, which makes it hard to impossible to get a job. You also lose student aid access, landlords can turn you away from housing legally because of it, etc. So even if you 100% want to be a normal member of society, you will hit so many roadblocks it is very difficult to do so.
- hansthehorse 8y ago
  My daughter has a felony record. When she was looking for a job I told her to lie on her applications. If she declared the conviction she wouldn't get the job, if she lied and they checked she wouldn't get the job. If she lied and got the job she wins. There is nothing to lose by lying on your job application if you have a conviction.

extralego 8y ago

I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a crime. The lack of social mobility means that regardless of what programs or mindsets one experiences in prison, they are all but forced right back into the same environment that put them there in the first place.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
What you're saying is if there's a chance that someone is reformed, they should be given that chance. But the other possibility is that they aren't. If you're wrong on the first and keep them in longer than they need to be, that wastes their time and potential. If you're wrong on the second and they aren't changed you're putting someone else at risk (someone who is innocent). The probabilities aren't a coin flip. Someone committing armed robbery at 17 had issues. If you know your prison system not only doesn't solve those issues but probably exacerbates them, the odds are you put that person out at 22 (or however early) and not only will they not be changed, but they'll have met real criminals and have few options. That's reckless and people who didn't rob someone at gunpoint shouldn't have to deal with the risk. That's why if we aren't actually rehabilitating, you're basically playing with a loaded gun, which is why risk averse politicians and judges aren't going anywhere near that and by odds the "correct" choice. Rehabilitation isn't a distraction. You have an actual problem that you can solve by: locking them away (we do this), helping them to become productive (rehabilitation), or hoping they've changed. The last isn't a solution, it's trusting in human nature, which in this situation has already shown to be faulty.

martinald 8y ago

I think the real problem in the US is the legal discrimination that goes on to people with criminal records. Records don't automatically get 'spent' like most other countries after a period of time so always need to be declared, which makes it hard to impossible to get a job. You also lose student aid access, landlords can turn you away from housing legally because of it, etc. So even if you 100% want to be a normal member of society, you will hit so many roadblocks it is very difficult to do so.

hansthehorse 8y ago
My daughter has a felony record. When she was looking for a job I told her to lie on her applications. If she declared the conviction she wouldn't get the job, if she lied and they checked she wouldn't get the job. If she lied and got the job she wins. There is nothing to lose by lying on your job application if you have a conviction.